Angry in the Great White North

From a Democratic Underground post:

To be free of massive damage and potential loss of life every time a major storm comes along is certainly a public benefit.

When Hurricane Hazel hit Toronto, one of the things that happened was that the areas immediately around the Humber and Don Rivers were designated no-building zones. Made sense, given that these areas suffered immensely from the flooding, and the people living there needed to find new homes anyway. But that was the limit of the changes, as I recall from reading about it.

After all, it was 1954. Canada hadn't turned all socialist yet.

But today, there seems to be a definite attitude change. A notion that this is our chance to get them, as it were:

Their [sic] destroyed mansions slinter into projectiles that are then flung around like matchsticks. Building stuff right where storms hit and rip them apart is a DANGER to everyones else.

A trip to "undeveloped" island or coastal areas in the world shows how coastlines are properly managed.

In Tahiti, the ONLY beach structures were small thatched huts (local people)...except for where "westerners" had built the large hotels.

States should re-claim barrier islands and coastlines, and restore them to their "original" purposes.

Replant sea grass & other native plants.. let the sand distribute where it "needs" to be, instead of where merchants, developers & million-dollar "cottage" owners WANT it to be.

Barrier islands and the marshy areas around them are what PROTECTS the people near the coastlines.

This storm may point out the proper use of eminent domain.

There ought to be a review to consider if any development decisions materially affected the impact of Katrina on New Orleans, when the time comes, of course. That is normal and responsible. But right now, I can't see what difference any of this would have made on the effects of a Category 4 hurricane. Moreoever, the attitude here seems to be to punish the affluent, and engage in an environmentalist's dream project of eliminating significant human development, even if it has not been touched by a storm.

My worry, of course, is that with the Kelo decision, it has become harder for property owners to defend their property rights against city councils who have decided that they have a "public use" argument with which to justify scientifically unsound decisions popular with environmentalists.

New Orleans might not be subject to those sorts of politics, but in other places in the US, where the environmental movement has more pull, the aftermath of Katrina might prompt some city council radicals to take "preemptive" measures.